Greetings – my name is Tiffany Madison and I’m an independent journalist with Washington Times Digital Media. My column is titled Citizen Warrior and I cover civil liberties and veteran’s issues. Gun control is a hot topic as legislators attempt to introduce a wide array of measures to restrict the Second Amendment. A recent list of businesses that do not support the Second Amendment has emerged.

As gun owners and firearm advocates, are you increasingly taking your business to establishments that support your concealed carry or right to carry on premises? Or, are your attitudes remaining the same as they always have in regards to choosing establishments that allow you to carry? If trends continue, would you consider boycotting establishments that advocate for gun control politically or voice their “gun free zone” status as a business or organization publicly in support of gun control? Do you feel that a new form of discrimination is emerging against lawful gun-owners?

I can only speak for me. Any company I find to be anti freedom, anti second ammendment, or which does not support my personal right to bear arms, protect myself, and my family, immediately looses my business. I will not shop at dicks sporting at all anymore, etc and so forth.

Thank you. Have you always held these views, or do you find that the increasingly political anti-firearm climate will encourage gun owners such as yourself to vote with your dollars and feet in support of establishments that support your rights?

I live in NC. We don't have a lot of businesses that are anti gun. Most businesses that have a gun buster sign serve alcohol. It's illegal to carry a gun into a business that serves alcohol by the drink. Gun buster signs don't bother me.

I don't support businesses that vocally anti gun. If a business or it's management are openly anti gun I don't trade there. Most of the businesses that have stopped selling modern sporting arms after the shooting at Sandy Hook I never patronized them anyway.

Hello Tiffany, I read a couple of your articles and I must say I'm impressed. You seem to be an advocate of freedom and the 2nd amendment. I hope I'm right in that assumption. As for your questions, in my view anyone that denies or goes against my 2nd amendment rights or appears to support unconstitutional practices in their businesses or in their personal belief is not anyone I'd ever freely associate with or give my business to. As for your last question I think it's become rather obvious there is discrimination, on a mass scale, being conducted against law abiding gun owners by the media, the government and left leaning citizens across the country. In other words they want us to be penalized for the actions of a couple of deranged individuals. It's not right and not even close to being constitutional in my view. What it is is an emotional over reaction by people that most likely have an anti-gun agenda to begin with.

I live in NC. We don't have a lot of businesses that are anti gun. Most businesses that have a gun buster sign serve alcohol. It's illegal to carry a gun into a business that serves alcohol by the drink. Gun buster signs don't bother me.

I don't support businesses that vocally anti gun. If a business or it's management are openly anti gun I don't trade there. Most of the businesses that have stopped selling modern sporting arms after the shooting at Sandy Hook I never patronized them anyway.

Hello Tiffany, I read a couple of your articles and I must say I'm impressed. You seem to be an advocate of freedom and the 2nd amendment. I hope I'm right in that assumption. As for your questions, in my view anyone that denies or goes against my 2nd amendment rights or appears to support unconstitutional practices in their businesses or in their personal belief is not anyone I'd ever freely associate with or give my business to. As for your last question I think it's become rather obvious there is discrimination, on a mass scale, being conducted against law abiding gun owners by the media, the government and left leaning citizens across the country. In other words they want us to be penalized for the actions of a couple of deranged individuals. It's not right and not even close to being constitutional in my view. What it is is an emotional over reaction by people that most likely have an anti-gun agenda to begin with.

Thank you kindly for your words. I am most definitely an advocate for both liberty and the Second Amendment. We live in an era in which ideas must be defended on an intellectual battlefield. I have a passionate pen and use it in defense of my liberties when possible. I am an independent journalist, not a member of mainstream media.

My purpose of this article is to highlight that given there are nearly 200 million+ firearm owners, businesses would be wise to temper their bandwagon participation in the establishment's new drive for gun control. I would like to do so as objectively as possible, though given my previous articles I'm sure my stance on the Second Amendment is clear.

As for your last statement, I would like to respectfully ask permission to anonymously - or with direct attribution - share that quote in the context of my piece. If you decline, please know I would most definitely understand.

I applaud your efforts, we need a lot more like you out there fighting the good fight. As for the quote feel free to us it but I think I'll just stay anonymous if you don't mind. Nothing in that list surprises me much to be honest, I posted a similar one a couple of days ago.

I applaud your efforts, we need a lot more like you out there fighting the good fight. As for the quote feel free to us it but I think I'll just stay anonymous if you don't mind. Nothing in that list surprises me much to be honest, I posted a similar one a couple of days ago.

I agree that we need more pro-liberty journalists, but I do believe we're beginning to emerge slowly but surely. I've been very surprised with the Washington Times and how passionate they are about NOT censoring opinions of a political nature, particularly libertarian and pro-rights opinions. More writers just need to go to the source, I think.

The quote will remain in full context and anonymous, "said a gun-rights advocate in an online forum" is all I need to attribute for integrity's sake. Thank you again for your feedback. I'll try to link the article back once it's published.